Kumar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs

Kumar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs

The general civil restraint order made by Moses J was invalid because the CPR did not permit a general CRO unless an extended CRO had previously been made and found insufficient, and the applicant had not been given proper notice or opportunity to respond. However, the evidence justified the making of an extended CRO, and the Court of Appeal substituted an extended CRO for the general CRO.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Ranbir Kumar; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court; Judgment on Appeal Against General Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; general civil restraint order set aside; extended civil restraint order substituted; remainder of application for permission to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Vexatious Litigation, Jurisdiction, Case Management, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Human Rights Civil Restraint Orders Vexatious Litigation Jurisdiction Case Management Access to Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranbir Kumar

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court; Judgment on Appeal Against General Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had power to grant a general civil restraint order (CRO) under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in the circumstances of this case
  2. 2 Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court permitted such an order notwithstanding the CPR regime
  3. 3 Whether an extended CRO could have been made on the evidence before the court

Ratio Decidendi

The general civil restraint order made by Moses J was invalid because the CPR did not permit a general CRO unless an extended CRO had previously been made and found insufficient, and the applicant had not been given proper notice or opportunity to respond. However, the evidence justified the making of an extended CRO, and the Court of Appeal substituted an extended CRO for the general CRO.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; general civil restraint order set aside; extended civil restraint order substituted; remainder of application for permission to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • General civil restraint order made on 8 November 2004 set aside.
  • Extended civil restraint order made against Mr Kumar for two years, restraining him from issuing claims or making applications in the Court of Appeal, High Court, or any county court concerning any matter relating to the proceedings without permission of a nominated judge.